How Dollarocracy is Destroying America and Toledo Ohio

Toledo media was mentioned on PBS Bill Moyers & Company. Video time19:55
Quote:
"For a working class family in Toledo Ohio the biggest issue of the day maybe food stamps or layoffs or it maybe something else happening in that town. We need a full newsroom in Toledo Ohio......If we don't intervene pretty soon, seriously, we are going to have dead zones as regards to media coverage."

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

But I did hear them say the above quote. Very interesting. Even though Moyers sees most issues through the haze and filter of liberalism, he has some very interesting guests. Ditto for both of the male guests he had on this program (i.e., haze of liberalism), but they are right about "dollarocracy".. All 3 agreed that politicians from BOTH PARTIES can be and ARE bought and paid for. I liked the letter Moyers read from a viewer, asking, "OK, so what do we do about it"? She said, "... and don't say vote, we already do that."

The quote about Toledo families, by the way, which made me wonder if maybe they read this blog, was pointing out that what the mainstream media covers often has NO RELEVANCY to what is going on in average American communities. Exactly. But who does the MSM pander to? Liberals. What I read into what the two liberal guests were really saying was that they are afraid that Dems will lose the Senate next year BECAUSE the media doesn't tell the truth, and average citizens in places like Toledo, can now see that, and are going to rebel (politically speaking) because of the lies being told by both the administration AND the mainstream media. I did not hear anything that convinced me that these 2 guests understand - really understand - that liberal policies ARE the problem - from both parties.

I think that woman hit the nail on the head. If there is nothing we can DO about it under our current system - THEN what? As I heard on red-eye radio last evening, you have Democrat Senator Max Baucus now saying the Affordable (haha) Care Act is a "train wreck". BUT BAUCUS WAS ONE OF THE MAIN ARCHITECTS OF THE ACA. So why did he push this "train wreck" through an all Dem congress (at the time)??? Because he is bought and paid for by the insurance giants. As they said on "red-eye" radio - He's smart to be retiring. I figure the chances of him being re-elected at this point were slim to none.

So the dollarocracy description is correct - but given the absolute polarization in congress at the moment - that isn't going to get solved any time soon. UNLESS we get a Republican Senate in 2014, which looks more and more likely right now.

Yes I very rarely watch or listen to MSMBC, FOXNEWS, CBS, NBC or ClearChannel radio exclusively. I try and get my news from independent sources so I can have an unfiltered view.

If the Dems lose the Senate or a Republican becomes the next president then Paul Ryan's budget kicks in. If that happens then look for deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare vouchers of $8,500 annually for seniors while big increases in our bloated military and NSA not-to-mention going back to health insurance with pre-existing conditions and insurance premiums where 50% goes into the insurance company pocket. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Hey Not-so-independent, some budget cuts have to happen. The top four items in the federal budget are Social Security, the military, Medicare/Medicaid, and finally interest on the debt. Those consume about 95% of federal revenue. When you try to cut one, people scream. You try to cut another, people scream, sometimes the same people. We're now in such trouble that something has to be cut, and in that sense, it doesn't matter what.

Nobody likes what a bankruptcy judge does, but his function is necessary. What you're doing now is the "people are screaming" part. That can just be ignored; you refuse to let cuts happen since it never occurs to you that your favored parts of the federal budget will have to be cut.

The logical thing among competing interests is that everyone takes a haircut, but logic is a distant 3rd in this race... to the bottom. Since across-the-board cuts can't happen, then targeted cuts must happen.

as to why you have such a grudge against American taxpayer dollars being spent on American taxpayers. But you never have one word about American taxpayer dollars being spent on foreign nationals - be it illegal Mexicans in the ER's around the country. Or illegal Mexicans taking good paying construction jobs in, North Carolina, who then overwhelm our health system - WHILE PAYING NO TAXES INTO EITHER THE GENERAL FUND NOR SOCIAL SECURITY. Or be it the BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars tossed down the rat hole known as the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Your position is no different - in reality - from the liberal who thinks the U.S. should be the financial caretaker of the entire world -- and the middle and working class American citizen should have THEIR rights abrogated and finances wrecked & Social Security reduced -- so that we can then keep making life comfortable for non-taxpaying foreign nationals. I just read an article the premise of which is that Libertarians are just liberals in disguise. I am beginning to believe that that author is ON to something.

Any American taxpayer - Dem or Repub - even in liberal Lucas County - that I talk to personally, out here in real life, wants Obama's pet project "Amnesty for Illegals" to go down in flames. But not you, apparently -- howz come? How young and inexperienced are you, that you can't see the big picture, and don't understand that American taxpayer dollars belong to Americans - period. And by the way - people in my age group HAVE PAID INTO SOCIAL SECURITY SINCE THE 1960''s when we started working and being taxed - taxed to death. Your grudge against older Americans has gotten to the point of being ridiculous. Count yourself lucky that there are only a couple of us "oldsters" on this posting board, because otherwise you would have gotten an earful long ago. You and Paul Ryan are dead wrong - Social Security going to those who paid into it - IS NOT THE PROBLEM. Not even close.

It makes NO sense to rail against Social Security - which you do constantly -- but remain silent on other nations and their nationals who bleed us dry year after. Makes no sense at all to me.

FG, what's the matter with your English comprehension? I summed it up thusly:

"Since across-the-board cuts can't happen, then targeted cuts must happen."

Those targeted cuts may be in SS. Or Medicare/Medicaid. Or the military. Or due to a default, in the debt interest. Those are the four largest budget items, and they consume 95% of the government revenue. The cuts MAY be in any one of those, but they MUST be cut in one. And I don't care where, either. I prefer the military be cut, true, but obviously in a society that became Fascist after WWII, we're under the military-industrial thumb, so I don't expect that. What I do expect is the socialist crap to be cut preferentially. It's in the zeitgeist of our rulers... and make no mistake, we are ruled.

And in that vein it's not like I have any real say, either. I'm just telling you what's mathematically true: There must be significant cuts, and those can only happen in the top 4 budget items (95% of revenue), and the cuts will happen per the whims of the ruling class.

What you should be suspicious of is your inability to admit what's mathematically true, followed hotly on its heels by what's culturally true. That leads immediately to your bias. You should be questioning your bias instead of me.

Summary:

GuestZero says "cuts must happen, I don't care where, since it no longer matters"
FG says "screeeeeeeeech".

That about sum it up for you?

of the BILLIONS IN FOREIGN AID...

Yet AGAIN, you avoid that topic like the plague. And a lot of those billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars sent overseas, and spent in the U.S. on foreign nationals - is HIDDEN FROM THE PUBLIC. There is no guarantee that your numbers are correct. And voters like you "see no evil speak no evil hear no evil" when it comes to ILLEGALS.

So if you are not going to acknowledge that un-addressed problem by coward politicians - why should anybody acknowledge numbers you choose to paste here? I don't buy your numbers, and don't care anyway. I paid into Social Security for close to 50 years, and if they have to use the entire U.S. budget on SS payments (which isn't even close to true anyway) - FINE BY ME.

Especially since you can't face the realities of ILLEGALS.

GZ

GZ she's obviously not smart enough to get it. I agree you are right that cuts must happen. I even believe they must happen in the military. I disagree with how they are doing it currently because in the end it will cost more money.

FG doesn't want her social security cut. I can understand that. But she's complaining about foreign aid and illegals who are really a drop in the bucket.

" I don't buy your numbers, and don't care anyway." GZ I realize these aren't your numbers. They are THE numbers. For someone who is a tea partier you'd think that FG would realize these are the same numbers the TP uses.

"I paid into Social Security for close to 50 years, and if they have to use the entire U.S. budget on SS payments (which isn't even close to true anyway) - FINE BY ME." Exactly the problem. She wants. If she got exactly what she got out of it what she paid into it she wouldn't be happy. If she got a 10% return she wouldn't be happy. She wants more and more and when she takes more than she paid in she doesn't care she still wants it.

Social Security is a failure and it's a failure because of FG's generation who wanted for the sake of wanting. She could care less how it affects everyone else as long as she gets her money.

MikeyA

"I agree you are right that cuts must happen. I even believe they must happen in the military. I disagree with how they are doing it currently because in the end it will cost more money."

Emphasis mine. Yes, that's the most enraging part of it all. Attempts to make military cuts so far have pretty much been theater. In the budget year of the "fiscal cliff" and "sequester", the military budget still grew by 1.8%. I love stunning people with that statistic. It shows how far away we really are from making real military cuts. ;^)

I sincerely hope that half of Dinesh D'Souza's 3rd Obama prediction comes to pass... that if he's forced to make cuts due to deficit handling, then he'll cut the military for real. But D'Souza's other half of the prediction is that Obama will raise taxes. Imagine hitting Americans about as hard as Obamacare's hitting them already, in yet another tax rise. The blowback on the Democrats is simply uncalculated at this point.

I still agree with you.

Most of these "cuts" are really just reductions of increases so not really a cut.

The cuts I am referring to are specific cuts not overall budget but I do agree your assessment is ENTIRELY correct and most don't understand that.

Personally a total budget freeze for two years could do great toward debt/deficit reduction. That or the BBA.

MikeyA

FG, honest question: Where in the following groups is "foreign aid" itemized in the federal budget?

DEPT OF DEFENSE (incl. Iran/Afghanistan Operations)
SOCIAL SECURITY
MEDICARE/MEDICAID
DEBT INTEREST

I eagerly await your answer. :^)

Conservatives don't like him and were never fooled by him. I can't recall what program I heard this on within the past week. But a brief discussion was being held about the 2012 election and the "talking heads" agreed that the election was really about Social Security - not whether Romney was cute or too rich or whatever. It was that the public knew what Ryan represented, and that Ryan wants to go after Social Security. And wasn't it stupid for Romney to pick him as VP candidate - but that was because Romney was seen to have been sending a message - if elected he & Ryan would go after Social Security.

I kind of agree with that analysis. And I voted for Romney anyway [given the horrifying alternative] - knowing that Ryan's stupidity was NOT going to get past conservatives OR liberals in congress.... now or in the future. I once read Ryan's bio (most of which I have forgotten) - but if memory serves, his background tells on him. He is not a conservative. And a future possible presidential candidate Ted Cruz wouldn't, for instance, consider Ryan or anyone like him for VP - and most certainly would not adopt Ryan's ideas. It's the globalists who are using Ryan, conservatives don't like him, period.

I am a conservative. I love Paul Ryan. I think he's reasonable and grounded. Ryan's budget was a compromise but it could have passed with bipartisian support, that's leadership.

Who are you to determine who is a conservative and who isn't? Ryan has probably done more for the party than Cruz. Ryan's breakdown of why Obamacare is a failure is more relevant today than Cruz' filibuster which served no purpose outside of trying to win a primary.

You say "globalist" like it's a bad thing. Being a "globalist" is the future. Because of technology the world is getting smaller. We are global citizens whether you like it or not. Isolation has never been a winning strategy. Have you seen the GDP of North Korea, the most isolated country in the world? Did isolationism work for President Wilson in WWI? FDR in WWII?

As GZ will tell you, whether we like it or not we are a member of the global market. Because of that labor costs, consumer spending, will all have to fall. This is the nature of man and supply and demand. These are fundamental traits, they cannot be changed. Attempts to manipulate them end in disaster time and time again.

MikeyA

Paul Ryan is off his rocker. You say these thing because you will get a government monthly check after only twenty years of service. Screw the people who've paid into Social Security you say without any thought or misgivings. The globalists are funding these Tea Party candidates. They want the American government to pay for their military security around the world. They are the ones negotiating the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) behind the American public's backs. They talk of jobs but continue to gut America's ability to compete. We pay for the worlds military protection and our healthcare costs are double any other industrialized nation while our infrastructure falls apart. Just how are we to compete with these costs? The military needs drastic reforms and transparency. Huge fraud is being committed and all the Paul Ryan's want to do is give this military industrial complex more by cutting from the American people.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

LOL

LOL you're complaining about military spending yet social security takes way more tax money and many people take way more out then they put in.

Actually it's fifteen years of service now Paul. They are shrinking the force and because of that they're paying us to go out into the private sector. How many years did you work for your pension? Sounds to me like you took the sucker bet.

So call me an idiot all you want. I'm going to be collecting a pension and working another job. BTW, you're welcome for the day off this week. You can thank me again in May.

MikeyA

MikeyA says, "LOL you're complaining about military spending yet social security takes way more tax money and many people take way more out then they put in."

They Call it Social Security an insurance program where many die young and never collect all they put in while other live longer. It a self funded program not a tax per say.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Paul the majority who collect from it take more out of it than they put in. So the program is funded from those who are currently payin in. This is not sustainable in this form. It is mathematics. It is no different than a ponzi scheme.

PLUS the raided the "lockbox" and sold it govt bonds AKA IOU's. So if the debt limit doesn't get raised and the US defaults social security loses out.

Plus look at a black man who works 30 years vice a white woman who works for 20. By sheer mortality rates the white woman will draw WAY more in benefits. How is this fair?

MikeyA

SS isn't a tax? Say what?

Are you seriously so ignorant that you don't know about SSI and SSDI? That children commonly collect from the SS system... so where's the "self funding" there, chum?

You people will do anything to defend your particular entitlement. And that's exactly the problem that haunts the federal budget. Nobody will give up their special program. And yet, 25%-40% of the federal budget is borrowed money. It's unsustainable. So cuts in these entitlements must happen. SS, Medicare/Medicaid, the military and the debt interest all consume about 95% of federal revenue. So cuts MUST happen there in order to have mathematical meaning.

I've paid into the SS system for decades, like you. But unlike you, I don't expect to get out what I paid into it. I'm a realist about the bankruptcy of the federal government. I know the facts. I know the figures. And I don't put my personal welfare in the way of what's clearly a much, much larger disaster.

Yes he is... & I hate to disagree with anything in that particular post, since you are accurately telling the board troll off.

But actual, real, "globalists" are not backing the tea party & I'm pretty sure I can prove it. I could google and research all day about Soros, the Koch Brothers and others. And I am not necessarily a fan of the Koch Brothers. But SOROS is the globalist. The Kochs are not. They are rich brothers who have enough dough to do exactly what Soros is doing - furthering their personal agenda with their money.

Want proof about who is a globalist and who is not (and more importantly, what their agenda is)?

Below is a link which is a list of members of the so-called Council on Foreign Relations - a private globalist organization pretty much controlled by David Rockefeller and Henry "light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel Kissinger. When these 2 non-Christians (absent repentance) pass through the gates of Hell, who will take their place? Don't know, but I do know you will find Soros' name along with theirs on this anti-sovereignty (evil) group's membership list. You won't find the Koch Brothers. When Bush One ran for president the first time, he withdrew his membership from the CFR, because back in the day, there were more Americans who understood the goals of this (evil) group. That understanding is quickly being lost. I personally heard David Rockefeller (friend of Soros) say on Charlie Rose's brainwash tv show that he thought Bush didn't really gain anything by leaving the CFR. (i.e., he was gently chastising Bush)

You have to know who the actual players are when you say "globalist." I think if you had been a union member back in the day when Reuther woke up and kicked the communists out of his union, you would understand better who the globalists are. In the U.S., this is the official list: Among many others, Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, Chelsea & Bill Clinton, Tim Geithner, Chuck Hagel, Ruth Bader Ginsburg [at one time SEVERAL supreme court justices were listed] are all on this list, or were at one time. Gore was on the list for years - he may have "resigned" when he became VP, but his goals are still globalist & anti-sovereignty for the U.S.

Bill Moyers is NOT on the list, which I found interesting. Charles Krauthammer - who conservatives listen to much too often, IMHO - IS on the list. Shame on Charles Krauthammer - he is smart enough to know better.

http://i.cfr.org/content/about/annual_report/ar_2013/Sectional_PDFs/Memb...

The thing to do (serious suggestion) is print out this lengthy list, and keep it next to your chair when you are watching the political talking heads on TV. It will open your eyes to who is trying to fool you and who isn't.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Globalism will roll on. I'm sorry to break the news to you.

We are in a world that is smaller now than at any point in history. We can reach around the world in seconds. This cannot be stopped.

Your efforts are futile.

MikeyA

Technically, globalism will roll on as long as high-density fuel sources are so highly available. Eventually that will stop being true, but "eventually" will be a lot longer than the union class and Boomer class can keep shooting up their welfare heroin. In other words, globalism will destroy the American middle class on much longer timeframe than the middle class can extend its repayment terms to adapt.

By 2040 AD or so, petroleum depletion will be the Number One topic on everyone's lips, much like Obamacare is today. And like Obamacare, there's no solution. The American middle class will have to accept a lower standard of living, regardless of what they do. They will have to do less, with less.

You are a retard if you think the Koch brothers don't do business globally.

And I'm sure Charles Krauthammer will now change his opinion based upon the learned opinion of a business scholar such as yourself.

MikeyA

George Carlin: The American Dream
Transcript
http://shoqvalue.com/george-carlin-on-the-american-dream-with-transcript/

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

You've already posted this.

Did you really thing this was such a good post that it deserved two postings?

MikeyA

Hey the cheer leading team is at WSPD facebook. MikeyA they will let you comment because you agree with them. Words of warning: If you post any contrarian comments they will block you. I think that will work for you Gomer.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Facebook is for the intellectually weak. It's no wonder you use it.

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.